Philando Castile Thread

[Ooh-Rah]

Okay, necessary disclaimer out of the way. I'm as "pro-cop" as anyone I know. This is not me bashing cops, or questioning their integrity, but I was listening to two lawyers (a prosecutor and a defense attorney) debate the jury system yesterday; especially when it comes to police and trying to convict police officers.

They did not agree on much, but one area where they were absolutely aligned, was over the concept of presumption of innocence. The conversation went on for nearly an hour, but in the end it came to to this:

The average jury walks into the courtroom and sizes up the defendant. They instantly think, "I wonder how the defense will try to make me think this guy is not guilty".

The average jury walks into the courtroom and sees a cop on trial. They instantly think, "I wonder what evidence the prosecutors has to make convict a cop of something".

Police officers are of the few class of citizens who truly enjoy a presumption of innocence, and that is one of the primary reasons it is so difficult to convict them of anything. The jury expects the prosecutors to PROVE the cop is guilty, and that same jury is looking for a reason not to convict the officer.

I thought about it for a while, guilty as charged. My personal bias is that in most cases the cops are going to be above board, and it is really going to take "something" for me to say the words "guilty".

Thoughts?

Agree/disagree?

 

[SpitfireV]

Well it's the prosecutors job to prove they're guilty though, the defence isn't totally there to prove them not guilty as such, it's to defend the person.

Personally if I ever get arrested for something I didn't do I would elect a judge only trial.

 

[CQB]

Generally the inquisitorial system of justice in Europe is better than the adversarial system that we have here in Oz & you have in the States & also in Britain. From my basic knowledge of it, it requires a judge to get to the facts of the matter before the court and ask any question of anyone to solve the legal puzzle. This results in a higher conviction rate than in the adversarial system. The adversarial system is an ancient duel where an entity picks a champion to go into battle on their behalf. Two issues do however, stand out for me (Gospel According to Moi).

• Why is it that the guilty have more rights over the victim?
• The right to silence really only protects the guilty

 

[757]

I would advocate that the right to silence protects the innocent just as much as the guilty, at least in the U.S. If you have 27 minutes I would highly recommend looking up "Don't talk to Cops." The professor in the aforementioned video is a Harvard Law graduate and a good friend of mine.

 

[Marine0311]

I would advocate that the right to silence protects the innocent just as much as the guilty, at least in the U.S. If you have 27 minutes I would highly recommend looking up "Don't talk to Cops." The professor in the aforementioned video is a Harvard Law graduate and a good friend of mine.

I have that video bookmarked. Well done.

 

[DocIllinois]

I would advocate that the right to silence protects the innocent just as much as the guilty, at least in the U.S. If you have 27 minutes I would highly recommend looking up "Don't talk to Cops." The professor in the aforementioned video is a Harvard Law graduate and a good friend of mine.

Your post reminded me of this video. Funny stuff, and ultimately true.

 

[Devildoc]

I good friend on mine--we went to high school together and worked as paramedics together--was a local ADA, now in private practice. Since I carry I have his number on speed dial. He taught me three things: 1) always keep your mouth shut, 2) money talks (the paid defense attorneys are simply better than the public defender, and 3) cops/FF/EMS/medical professionals are at a huge advantage.

 

[CQB]

I would advocate that the right to silence protects the innocent just as much as the guilty, at least in the U.S. If you have 27 minutes I would highly recommend looking up "Don't talk to Cops." The professor in the aforementioned video is a Harvard Law graduate and a good friend of mine.

I'm not in the legal profession. I had a look at your recommendation & it has a strong case for the right to silence in criminal law. There is always (or should be) the presumption of innocence and the prosecution carries the burden of proof in an adversarial system. The US laws are similar to ours, as is our constitution & also there are other common law rights which are the basis of the legal system. Within our system there are some government bodies that have an inquisitorial approach but they are a rarity.
Would the right to silence apply in a terrorism case? For example, there is a man in custody who has knowledge of a mass casualty event occurring in the next 12-24 hours in a metropolitan environment. Does he have a right to silence? I would argue no, he does not. If he remains silent he runs the risk of an adverse inference being drawn. I'm not across the current US terrorism laws, but ours have changed radically over the past 10 years and have upset the legal fraternity here as they have wholeheartedly eroded common law rights like the right to silence. Whilst not perfect, generally these new laws been successful.

 

[Frank S.]

Would the right to silence apply in a terrorism case? For example, there is a man in custody who has knowledge of a mass casualty event occurring in the next 12-24 hours in a metropolitan environment. Does he have a right to silence?

I've been wondering whether "time" in some way should be considered an element of a crime/offence. Perhaps depending upon the nature and severity of it...

 

[policemedic]

Not sure what you mean.

 

[Frank S.]

I'm not expressing myself clearly. And I need to think about it more.

 

[Kraut783]

Maybe in the world of use of force or in the performance of the LEO's duties, we do get some latitude as we are making decisions based on seconds ....but when an LEO crosses the line....committing crimes (theft, burglary, rape...etc), they are held to a higher standard and the public crushes them in court....just from my perspective.

 

[TLDR20]

Is this about Philando Castile?

 

[Ooh-Rah]

Is this about Philando Castile?

Yes.

I live in Minneapolis.

 

[TLDR20]

My question is why the NRA isn't rushing to the defense of Philando? A registered lawfully carrying gun owner is shot after telling the officer he is carrying? Seems like a great time for the NRA and other organizations like them to make a big stink...

As to the presumption of innocence, if it were the same for normal citizens as it is for police we would have a lot less people in jail.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

My question is why the NRA isn't rushing to the defense of Philando? A registered lawfully carrying gun owner is shot after telling the officer he is carrying? Seems like a great time for the NRA and other organizations like them to make a big stink...

I agree with this completely. Living in Minnesota, I have closely followed this case; as a long time permit holder (15+ years) it has greatly disappointed me. Bottom line, the officer panicked. Castile was following two sets of orders, get his wallet and don't touch his gun. The officer panicked, and killed the man.

Very VERY frustrated that on the other forum I post on, videos of the anguished mother and sister are being posted and mocked. I understand that I have not had access to the same testimony and evidence that the jury saw, but I'm really struggling with friends who automatically go to the cop's side....because he is a cop and the departed was a 'black thug'. (their words). Yes, the man had a lengthy record...but that was unknown at the time of the stop.

 

[Marauder06]

My question is why the NRA isn't rushing to the defense of Philando? A registered lawfully carrying gun owner is shot after telling the officer he is carrying? Seems like a great time for the NRA and other organizations like them to make a big stink...

As to the presumption of innocence, if it were the same for normal citizens as it is for police we would have a lot less people in jail.

Have they ever done that, in any officer-involved shooting of a legal handgun owner?

 

[TLDR20]

Have they ever done that, in any officer-involved shooting of a legal handgun owner?

I don't know. Seemed like a good time to start IMO.

 

[DocIllinois]

I don't know. Seemed like a good time to start IMO.

The NRA fiercely criticizes government overreach, yet it is a largely pro police organization.

A great many of it's more than 5 million members are current or former law enforcement officials.

The NRA host an annual police shooting championship, and have an entire law enforcement firearms training division.

In view of these facts alone, it isn't really difficult to figure out why they aren't making any strong statements in a case like Philando's, IMO.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

My question is why the NRA isn't rushing to the defense of Philando? A registered lawfully carrying gun owner is shot after telling the officer he is carrying? Seems like a great time for the NRA and other organizations like them to make a big stink...

You are not the only one to ask...

Castile being black is keeping NRA silent about cop's acquittal, 'Daily Show' host charges

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10155490286001800